Able-Bodied Husband Cannot Defeat Maintenance Claim By Projecting Income Below Minimum Wages: Delhi High Court

"An able-bodied man cannot be permitted to defeat a claim for maintenance by his wife by withholding basic financial particulars... and the Family Court is entitled to draw an adverse inference and impute at least a baseline earning capacity." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 4, 2026, held that a husband cannot escape his legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor children by providing non-credible income disclosures that fall below the statutory minimum wages.

A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while adjudicating cross-petitions, observed that when a spouse withholds material financial information, the courts are duty-bound to impute a baseline earning capacity to ensure the dependents are not left in penury.

The parties were married in 2014 and have two minor daughters, but separated in 2016 following allegations of domestic violence and dowry harassment. The wife initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act), seeking maintenance for herself and her children. The Appellate Court had enhanced the interim maintenance to ₹13,000 per month, leading both the husband and wife to challenge the order before the High Court.

The primary questions before the court were whether the husband’s disclosure of earning only ₹12,000 per month was credible in light of his educational qualifications and previous business activities. The court was also called upon to determine if the wife’s maintenance award under the PWDV Act should be adjusted against the amount already granted under Section 125 CrPC.

Husband’s Claim Of Earning Below Minimum Wages Rejected

The Court scrutinized the husband’s claim that he was merely a supervisor earning ₹12,000 per month. Justice Sharma noted that the husband is a graduate who previously operated a proprietorship firm under the name 'M/s Lalaji Plastic.' The Court found it highly improbable that an educated individual with prior business experience would earn a salary that is even below the prescribed minimum wages in Delhi.

Adverse Inference Drawn For Financial Non-Disclosure

The bench emphasized that the husband had failed to provide a candid disclosure of his financial status. Despite allegations of significant business income, the husband claimed his firm was closed in 2017 but failed to provide satisfactory evidence regarding the closure of his bank accounts. The Court noted that the husband had filed ITR-4 forms, typically meant for business income, even after the alleged closure of his firm.

"Where a person withholds vital information, a presumption arises against him that had he disclosed the information, the same would have been adverse to him."

Imputing Baseline Earning Capacity

Relying on the precedent set in Tasmeer Qureshi v. Asfia Muzaffar, the Court held that minimum wages provide a statutory and reasonable basis to assess a person’s earning capacity when direct proof of income is withheld. Justice Sharma observed that the husband had made significant tax-saving investments in mutual funds just before the separation, indicating financial depth far beyond his declared monthly salary.

Husband’s Income Assessed At Not Less Than ₹20,000

In view of the non-disclosure and the husband’s qualifications, the Court assessed his monthly income at no less than ₹20,000. The Court remarked that the husband has no other dependents apart from the wife and two minor children. Therefore, the award of ₹13,000 per month was found to be neither excessive nor unreasonable, considering the current cost of living and the needs of two school-going children.

"Minimum wages provide a statutory and reasonable basis to assess a person's earning capacity when there is no direct or reliable proof of actual income available on record."

Set-Off Of Maintenance Awards Under Different Statutes

The Court addressed the intersection of Section 125 CrPC and the PWDV Act. It held that the maintenance of ₹7,000 already awarded by the Family Court must be set off and adjusted against the ₹13,000 awarded in the present proceedings. This alignment ensures that the total liability of the husband remains within the assessed interim quantum while preventing double recovery for the same period.

Final Directions And Scope Of Trial

The Court clarified that the observations made at this stage are prima facie and subject to the final determination of the Trial Court. The parties are entitled to lead evidence to establish their actual income during the trial. If the evidence eventually reveals a significantly different financial status, the Trial Court remains empowered to modify the maintenance quantum in its final order.

The High Court dismissed both petitions and upheld the total interim maintenance of ₹13,000 per month for the wife and children. It reaffirmed that husbands cannot defeat maintenance claims through evasive financial disclosures and that courts will intervene to impute realistic income based on earning capacity and minimum wage standards.

Date of Decision: 04 April 2026